The utility of Guba and Lincoln's (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation (FGE) method has been a source of debate in the field of evaluation (e.g. Adelman, 1996; Greene, 1996; Laughlin and Broadbent, 1996). The majority of these debates tend to focus on hypothetical implementation issues. Few, if any, have attempted to examine FGE through direct application of the method to an actual evaluand of interest. The purpose of the present article is to examine the utility of incorporating the FGE methodology as one of the first steps in a community–university collaboration regarding youth. The strengths and limitations of the FGE methodology will be highlighted through a discussion of its application. Revealed strengths of FGE include the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups, exposure to multiple perspectives, and fostering early support for later programmatic developments. Limitations include difficulties in defining stakeholders, and providing evidence of education and empowerment. The information gained from this application has practical implications for others seeking to employ the FGE methodology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelman, C. (1996) ‘Anything Goes: Evaluation and Relativism’, Evaluation2(3): 291–305.
2.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986) ‘Recent Advances in Research on the Ecology of Human Development’, in R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth and G. Rudinger (eds) Development as Action in Context: Problem Behavior and Normal Youth Development, pp. 287–309. Heidelberg and New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978) ‘Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It’, in R. S. Valle and M. King (eds) Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology, pp. 48–71. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Elliot, D. S. (1993) ‘Health-enhancing and Health Compromising Lifestyles’, in S. G. Millstein, A. C. Peterson and E. O. Nightengale (eds) Promoting the Health of Adolescence: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 119–145. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Fetterman, D. M. (1996) ‘Empowerment Evaluation: An Introduction to Theory and Practice’, in A. Fetterman, S. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (eds) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Accountability, pp. 3–46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Garbarino, J. (1985) Adolescent Development: An Ecological Perspective. Ohio, OH: Charles E. Merril Publishing Co.
7.
Glaser, B. and M. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
8.
Greene, J. (1996) ‘Qualitative Evaluation and Scientific Citizenship: Reflections and Refractions’, Evaluation2 (3): 277–289.
9.
Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Harter, S. (1993) ‘Causes and Consequences of Low Self-esteem in Children and Adolescents’, in R. Baumeister (ed.) Self-esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-regard, pp. 87–117. New York: Plenum Press.
11.
Laughlin, R. and J. Broadbent (1996) ‘Redesigning Fourth Generation Evaluation: An Evaluation Model for Public-Sector Reforms in the UK?’, Evaluation2(4): 431–451.
12.
Lerner, R. M. (1986) Concepts and Theories of Human Development, 2nd edn. New York: Random House.
13.
Lerner, R. M. (1991) ‘Changing Organism–Context Relations as the Basic Process of Development: A Developmental Contextual Perspective’, Developmental Psychology27: 27–32.
14.
Lerner, R. M. (1992) ‘Dialectics, Developmental Contextualism, and the Further Enhancement of Theory about Puberty and Psychosocial Development’, Journal of Early Adolescence12: 366–388.
15.
Lerner, R. M. (1995) American's Youth in Crisis: Challenges and Options for Programs and Policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
McKinney, M. , I. Abrams, P. Terry and R. M. Lerner (1994) ‘Child Development Research and the Poor Children of America: A Call for a Developmental Contextual Approach to Research and Outreach’, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal23: 26–42.
17.
Moore, K. and D. Glei (1995) ‘Taking the Plunge: An Examination of Positive Youth Development’, Journal of Adolescent Research10(1): 15–40.
18.
Ogbu, J. (1981) ‘Origins of Human Competence: A Cultural-ecological Perspective’, Child Development52: 413–429.
19.
Ostrom, C. W. , R. M. Lerner and Freel (1995) ‘Building the Capacity of Youth and Families Through University–Community Collaborations: The Development-In-Context Evaluation (DICE) Model’, Journal of Adolescent Research10(4): 427–448.
20.
Pittman, K. and M. Cahill (1991) ‘Youth Empowerment: Cornerstone of Youth Development’, unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Academy of Educational Development.
21.
Pittman, K. and M. Wright (1991) ‘A Rationale for Enhancing the Role of the Non-school Voluntary Sector in Youth Development’, unpublished manuscript prepared for the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Washington, DC.
22.
Rappaport, J. (1984) ‘Studies in Empowerment: Introduction to the Issue’, in J. Rappaport and R. Hess (eds) Studies in Empowerment: Steps Toward Understanding and Action, pp. 1–8. New York: Haworth Press.
23.
Small, S. (1990) ‘Some Issues Regarding the Evaluation of Family Life Education Programs’, Family Relations39: 132–135.
24.
Swenson, M. (1991) ‘Using Fourth-Generation Evaluation in Nursing’, Evaluation and the Health Profession14(1): 79–87.
25.
Weiss, H. B. and J. C. Greene (1992) ‘An Empowerment Partnership for Family Support and Education Programs and Evaluations’, Family Science Review4(1 & 2): 131–149.
26.
Zeldin, S. (1995) ‘Community–University Collaboration for Youth Development: From Theory to Practice’, Journal of Adolescent Research10(4): 449–469.
27.
Zeldin, S. and L. Price (1995) ‘Creating Supportive Communities for Adolescent Development: Challenges to Scholars’, Journal of Adolescent Research10(1): 6–14.
